Remanded

Karan Rajput v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2023WRIC/7255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed an order rejecting a petitioner's claim for compassionate grounds appointment, citing established precedent allowing grandson status and violation of natural justice due to uncommunicated financial transaction evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.12.2021 quashed and matter remanded to District Level Committee to decide afresh after affording petitioner opportunity to explain financial transactions.

Karan Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7255 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Karan Rajput Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶6

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.12.2021 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate ground has been rejected.

¶7

The facts, in brief, are that the grand-mother of the petitioner was allotted a fair price shop in terms of the licence issued to her. It is claimed that the grand-mother of the petitioner died on 18.03.2021 and after the death, the father of the petitioner filed an application on 26.03.2021 for being granted appointment to the fair price shop licence on compassionate ground in terms of the provisions contained in the Government order dated 05.08.2019. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner withdrew the said application as he was illiterate person as the requirement in the Government order is that the applicant should be High School pass.

¶8

The petitioner thereafter claiming to be dependent on the grandmother, moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 27.03.2021. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 21.06.2021, mainly on the ground that the petitioner, being the grand-son, did not fall within the definition of the family as defined in the Government order dated 05.08.2019. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ C No. 29523 of 2021 (Karan Rajput Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others) which was allowed on 10.11.2021 and the order of rejection was set aside in the light of the law laid down in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Food & Civil Supplies & Ors. (Misc. Single No. 13015 of 2020) directing the District Level Committee to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.

¶9

In terms of the said direction as given by this Court, it appears that the District Level Committee has again rejected the application and a formal communication was forwarded to the petitioner on 24th December 2021. It transpires that the same has been rejected on two grounds; firstly, that the petitioner did

¶10

not fall within the definition of family as provided in the Government order dated 05.08.2019 and secondly on the ground that there were financial transactions in the bank account of the father of the petitioner. As such, no opinion can be formed that the petitioner was dependent on his grandmother.

¶11

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the first issue with regard to the petitioner being a member of the family stands concluded in view of the law laid down in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Food & Civil Supplies & Ors. (Misc. Single No. 13015 of 2020) and Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Food & Rasad Deptt. & 2 Ors. (Misc. Bench No. 2899 of 2015 decided on 20th July, 2016.

¶12

He further argues that the second reason recorded, being the financial transactions in the bank account of the father of the petitioner, can be explained as after the death of grand-mother, the father of the petitioner had taken certain loans and thus the financial transactions were reflected in the bank account. He argues that in the event, the petitioner was called upon, he could have explained the said financial transactions. As the petitioner was never confronted with the financial transactions, the petitioner could never explain the same and to that extent, the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶13

Considering the arguments raised in the Bar and on the perusal of pleadings which are on record, it is clear that in view of the law laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Karan Rajput (supra) , the issue with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, being the grand-son, stood concluded. The other ground which is the foundation for passing of the impugned order, cannot be sustained as the material which form of the basis for passing the order was never confronted to the petitioner, ass such, the order impugned is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶14

For all the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 24th December, 2021 is quashed.

¶15

The matter is remanded to the District Level Committee to take a decision afresh. While taking the decision, the petitioner shall be supplied with the materials including the statement of account of the father of the petitioner. His explanation to the said material shall be considered before passing the order as directed above.

¶16

The District Level Committee shall conclude and pass the order

¶17

in terms of the above referred directions preferably within a period of two months from the petitioner approaching and filing an appropriate application before the respondent no. 2.

¶18

Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed off .

¶19

Order Date :- 22.3.2023 Ashutosh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karan Rajput v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Rajput v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Apaar Power Constructions Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Harbu Bai Vs Authorized Officer and Another

Kanchan Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs Competent Authority Under Payment of Gratuity and 2 Others

Rakesh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another